Lack of Stakeholder Influence on Pollution Prevention

Abstract

In a developing country context, this study explores environmental awareness, stakeholder influence strategies, and pollution prevention roles among 11 local, civil society groups (e.g., environmental nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] is one grouping; media and press is another grouping). A theoretical framework that builds on the social movement literature and is more inclusive of a developing country context is offered. In essence, awareness-raising is also considered a stakeholder influence strategy. Based on surveys conducted in Chittagong, Bangladesh, the results of this empirical study show that 10 of the 11 groups were environmentally aware; however, only the environmental NGOs were willing to influence the other groups. The environmental NGOs were actively raising awareness, but they were not directly influencing firms or the federal government on pollution prevention. These findings challenge the generalization of current stakeholder influence theory to a developing country context and raise concerns about the capacity of local civil society to encourage pollution prevention.

Keywords

stakeholder influence environmental awareness civil society social change greening industry pollution prevention Bangladesh South Asia developing country

Introduction

The collapse of the Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in 2013 and the subsequent death of 1,133 workers brought the world’s attention to the safety of employees working in the apparel industry in Bangladesh (AFP, 2013). The environmental conditions are just as concerning as the social conditions in Bangladesh as there is very little pollution control or pollution prevention taking place there ( A.Hoque & Clarke, 2013). Bangladeshi businesses (especially industrial plants) are negatively affecting the environment by polluting neighboring communities and ecosystems (Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Waddock, 2011). Given the ineffective regulatory regime and lack of voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in Bangladesh, it potentially becomes the role of civil society to influence corporate behavior (Belal & Roberts, 2010; World Bank, 2000). The situation in Bangladesh raises a number of questions: Are Bangladeshi community stakeholders aware of environmental concerns? Are these stakeholders attempting to make others aware of such concerns (M. A. Islam & Deegan, 2008)? Are they willing to mobilize public sentiment in favor of, or against, a firm’s environmental approach? What roles do local civil society groups play in influencing pollution prevention? What types of stakeholder influence strategies, if any, do Bangladeshi civil society groups use (Belal & Owen, 2007)?

Community groups and other stakeholders can create an informal regulatory regime by putting pressure on industrial plants to decrease pollution and conform to social norms, especially where formal regulations are absent or ineffective (World Bank, 2000). In developed countries, stakeholders’ concerns over environmental issues have grown to such a degree that businesses can no longer ignore them (Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; González-Benito & González-Benito, 2010). As a result of stakeholder influence, some companies are increasingly interested in social and environmental responsibilities (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2010; Kourula, 2010). Community pressure has led companies to consider the natural environment in their strategic management plans and implementation (Edwards, 2005; Lee & Rhee, 2006; Qi et al., 2011). In recent years, the local community has been recognized as a high-priority stakeholder, and community engagement is also being used as a means of achieving CSR (Kobeissi & Damanpour, 2009). While stakeholder influence as a way to ensure CSR has been theorized, most of this literature is based on a developed country context. Although conceptual work regarding CSR in a developing country context does exist, empirical studies have remained relatively scant (Jamali & Mirshak, 2007; Reed, 2002), thus raising the theoretical questions: How relevant is stakeholder influence theory in a developing country context? And, how can it be extended so as to be more inclusive of a developing country context?

Based on the argument advanced in the literature, that civil society groups can influence pollution prevention (e.g., Leonard & Pelling, 2010), this study explores the attitude, behavior, and roles of members of local civil society with regard to pollution prevention in Bangladesh. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh is a South Asian country with a population of 155 million and a GNI per capita income of US $480. In this developing country, 41% of the Bangladeshi people live on less than $1 a day, and 84% live on less than $2 a day . Some environmental regulations are in place, although these are considered ineffective (Belal & Roberts, 2010: A. Hoque, Clarke, & MacDonald, 2014). Most industries are not equipped with pollution treatment facilities; thus, the majority of industrial effluent is directly discharged into local bodies of water (A. Hoque & Clarke, 2013). Despite there being some pollution prevention measures in place, Bangladesh is a country in which many of its firms significantly underutilize these measures (A. Hoque & Clarke, 2013).

Stakeholder Influence

Frooman (1999) originally developed the stakeholder concept to describe the natures of corporate behavior and social performance. A stakeholder is a group, or individuals, who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose; a stakeholder can also have the ability to significantly influence organizational policies (Altman, 1999; Frooman, 1999; Schwartz & Carroll, 2008; Starik, 1994, 1995). Whereas stakeholder engagement is related to the perspective of the firm (Eesley & Lenox, 2006), stakeholder influence is related to the perspective of the stakeholder or the social movement. This study focuses on the latter, namely, stakeholder influence.

Firms are often subjected to coercive and normative pressures from various stakeholders—including governments, consumers, and community and environmental interest groups (Delmas & Toffel, 2004). In other words, stakeholders can influence the practices of organizations by exerting pressure on them to adopt environmental protection activities (Cespedes-Lorentea, Burgos-Jimeneza, & Alvarez-Gilb, 2003; Kassinis & Vafeas, 2006). Social movement theory supports the argument that stakeholder groups are likely to be successful in eliciting positive responses from business firms (Eesley & Lenox, 2006). Community stakeholders can mobilize public sentiment in favor of, or against, a firm’s environmental approach (Guoyou, Saixing, Chiming, Haitao, & Hailiang, 2013).

Stakeholder activism has become a common occurrence in many developed countries as community groups increasingly use a variety of strategies to influence firms’ actions (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Frooman (1999) proposed four types of stakeholder influence strategies: direct withholding, indirect withholding, direct usage, and indirect usage. “Withholding strategies determine whether a firm obtains a resource, whereas usage strategies seek to attach conditions to the continued supply of that resource” (Frooman, 1999, p. 198). Through withholding and usage strategies, stakeholders attempt to influence firms to create behavioral changes (Frooman, 1999). Stakeholder organizations are able to sanction the policies and practices of numerous corporations, thereby exerting direct withholding and usage strategies (O’Connell, Stephens, Betz, Shepard, & Hendry, 2005). For example, stakeholders used both withholding and directed usage strategies to influence the environmental practices of Canadian forestry companies (Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008; Sharma & Henriques, 2005). Direct strategies are those in which stakeholders manipulate the flow of resources to firms either by withholding or attaching conditions (usage; Frooman, 1999). Another example of a direct strategy would be that of trade unions and employees withholding labor through means of striking (Frooman, 1999). Moreover, one stakeholder group may seek to persuade another stakeholder group to join its claim in relation to a business, which can increase the effectiveness of the strategy (Laplume et al., 2008; Neville & Menguc, 2006).

Stakeholder influence is the second step in a continuum of social change strategies that have increasing potential to create systemic impact (Clarke & Dougherty, 2010). Clarke and Dougherty (2010) presented three strategies that an organization can employ as part of a larger social movement effort: socialization, influence, and direct power. These strategies can have three levels of impact: individual, community (or firm), and systematic (government policy or sector). In the context of pollution prevention, Clarke and Dougherty’s (2010) influence strategies can be adapted to raise awareness in individuals, to influence firms to adopt pollution prevention measures, and to influence the government to put in systemic policies. While a greater part of the stakeholder influence literature is focused on directly influencing the firm, this broader interpretation enables a wider understanding of stakeholder influence efforts (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Continuum of influence strategies and levels of impacts.

A number of authors have also explored the question of what drives stakeholders to become influencers. Stakeholders must perceive that the target organization will be responsive to pressure in order to be mobilized (Butterfield, Reed, & Lemak, 2004; Jensen & Berg, 2012; Laplume et al., 2008). According to Laplume et al. (2008) in their literature review, one of the key questions is, “When will stakeholder groups mobilize?” The literature suggests that stakeholder groups will be mobilized when they are aware, willing, and capable of doing so (Laplume et al., 2008; Rowley & Berman, 2000). Stakeholders are likely to target heavy industries (e.g., the chemical industry) that do and can cause great harm to human life (Rowley & Berman, 2000).

Therefore, it can be tentatively concluded, based on the literature, that stakeholders create an informal regulation regime by putting pressure on industrial plants to decrease pollution. Specific stakeholders should be able to influence the environmental behavior of firms if they are aware, willing, and capable of doing so. Based on the literature, the hypotheses are the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Local civil society groups have an awareness of environmental issues.

Hypothesis 1b: Local civil society groups pursue influence strategies to encourage pollution prevention.

In addition, based on the literature, the first strategy for a social movement is awareness-raising before the stakeholder can become a direct influencer. The level of impact starts with individuals, proceeds to firms, and finally moves to systemic impact. Stakeholder influence, as a theoretical concept, can be expanded to include awareness-raising as an influence strategy.

Stakeholder Roles

According to the literature on stakeholder roles, civil society works to safeguard community interests (World Bank, 2000). As individuals in these groups are directly affected by industrial pollution in their day-to-day lives, theoretically they are actively involved in preserving the quality of the natural environment. They are presumed to interact with government agencies and corporations regarding pollution prevention. Not only can these groups create awareness among their members, they can also organize them to fight against polluters’ undesirable activities. They could try to influence the government through their representatives to formulate appropriate legal measures to minimize the harmful effects of polluting industries; and/or try to influence firms directly to pursue CSR and/or other environmental initiatives. In other words, civil society groups can put pressure directly on the industries concerned or apply pressure indirectly through the government to prevent and control the generation of industrial pollution (Wheeler, 1999).

Civil society groups have the important role of a stakeholder, or even potentially of a partner, in companies’ efforts to be more socially and environmentally responsible (Clarke & Fuller, 2010). For example, environmental organizations and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can hold a significant amount of influence over environmental policies (both government and firms) in industrialized countries (Cordano, Frieze, & Ellis, 2004; Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Friedman & Miles, 2002). Local community groups and cultural organizations can also play important roles in awareness-raising (Davis & McGregor, 2000). Trade unions can be very active in highlighting the impacts of pollution on workers and on adjacent areas of industrial plants in addition to influencing change (Davis & McGregor, 2000). A number of media stakeholders, such as newsletters, magazines, radio and television programs, and movies, provide ecological information to the public (Starik & Rands, 1995). The media can be vigilant in disclosing the impacts of pollution to draw these impacts to the attention of the government and the public (Kock, Santaló, & Diestre, 2012). The media can influence other stakeholder groups to withhold legitimacy (a valuable resource) from the firm; in this way, the media has indirect stakeholder power (Sharma & Henriques, 2005). Scientists, researchers, and other groups of intellectuals, through their writing, can help make citizens and the government more conscious of the harmful effects of pollution (Davis & McGregor, 2000). Professional associations can put pressure on the government with regard to environmental pollution (Davis & McGregor, 2000).

This study broadly focuses on local civil society actors as representatives of community stakeholder groups and on the awareness-raising and other influence strategies that are available to local stakeholders. Based on the literature reviewed above, it can be expected that civil society groups will play different roles and thus have different levels of awareness and different usage of influence strategies. However, the expectation is that all groups will have a role in influencing pollution prevention. The hypotheses are the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Different local civil society groups have different levels of awareness of environmental issues.

Hypothesis 2b: Different local civil society groups have different levels of pursuit in their efforts to influence pollution prevention.

Hypothesis 3: All local civil society groups play a role in influencing pollution prevention.

Civil Society in Bangladesh

Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan in 1971 after a 9-month liberation war (Sobhani, Amran, & Zainuddin, 2009). Civil society as a concept is not straightforward; “civil society,” usually considered an English term, can be translated into Bangla as Shushil Shamaj, which literally means “gentle society” (Lewis, 2004). In Bangladesh, civil society is not a new institution given its rich history of civil society organizations and activity, beginning in colonial times about 240 years ago (Davis & McGregor, 2000; Zafarullah & Rahman, 2002).

In Bangladesh, pollution is a major environmental concern given its many industries have been seriously contaminating nearby communities and rivers on a daily basis with industrial wastes for some time. The Department of Environment of Bangladesh identified 903 polluting industrial installations; later, this number was increased to 1,317 (Belal, 2001). Some national pro-environmental organizations have been working systematically to protect the natural environment. The Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association, the Forum of Environmental Journalists of Bangladesh, and the Bishwa Shahitya Kendra are the pioneers in playing a role as pro-environmental organizations in protecting the natural environment by creating environmental awareness and influence (M. A. Islam & Deegan, 2008).

The rich variety of civil society organizations in Bangladesh include local community groups, professional groups, groups of intellectuals, trade unions and workers, cultural organizations, media organizations, and NGOs (Davis & McGregor, 2000). Bangladeshi authors also recognize the potential influence of civil society. R. Islam (2000) reiterated that members of civil society have an important role in building up the necessary social movements to protect Bangladesh’s natural environment. Khan (2000) stated that civil society can create awareness about the environment among the people of Bangladesh.

Alam, Karim, and Chowdhury (2002) defined 10 local civil society groups in Bangladesh that have an important role to play in preventing pollution. This is the only research that has developed a comprehensive framework in identifying the civil society groups that are concerned with preventing pollution in Bangladesh (see Table 1). Alam et al. (2002) did not prioritize these groups. In addition to Alam et al.’s 10 categories, environmental NGOs were added to Table 1 because these organizations have an obvious role in influencing pollution prevention and are active in Bangladesh (Davis & McGregor, 2000).

Table 1.

Different Civil Society Groups in Bangladesh.

Scientists and researchers

Media and press

Artists and players

Political parties

Professionals

Literacy and cultural organizations

Trade unions

Women and children organizations

Bureaucrats

Professional associations

Environmental nongovernmental organizations

Note. Adapted from Alam (2002), p. 22.

Method

This study used a survey design. Questions appropriate to the Bangladeshi context were developed to determine the awareness, usage of influence strategies, and roles of local civil society groups. In essence, the surveys enabled us to test the hypotheses presented earlier by determining:

To what extent members of local civil society groups are aware of environmental issues and, as a result, embed environmental decision-making into their personal decisions.

To what extent members of local civil society groups take actions to influence others. Also, which influence strategies each group is using.

To what extent members of local civil society groups are involved in pollution prevention.

The rationale behind the empirical questions is, first, to consider the perceived attitudes and behaviors of individuals representing civil society groups, and, second, to consider the perceived role and behaviors of the civil society groups.

Based on the work of Alam and colleagues (Alam, 2002; Alam et al., 2002) and of Davis and McGregor (2000), the 11 civil society groups that are listed in Table 1 were selected as respondents in this study. To ensure that the civil society organizations studied were those involved in pollution prevention efforts, secondary information, which was collected from various journals, periodicals, books, annual company reports, and office documents, was used to identify key stakeholders. From this information, key players in pollution prevention for each civil society category were determined. In other words, this secondary data informed the list of potential participants for this study.

In terms of the categories of civil society groups, the difference between professionals and professional associations is that the former are individuals (e.g., doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, and architects) representing themselves only, while the latter are group representatives (in Bengali Peshajibi Shomonnoy Parished). The bureaucrats were selected from Department of Environment Chittagong office, the people who are responsible for the enforcement of environmental regulations for pollution prevention. The environmental NGO respondents were 10 local organizations (generally funded by international donor agencies) that are working on socioeconomic development and environmental issues in Bangladesh; environmental issues are part of their other socioeconomic development programs. All of the leading environmental NGOs in Chittagong participated in the survey.

Ten members were selected from each of the 11 civil society groups, producing a total of 110 respondents. People in senior positions, such as the president and secretary of the civil society group, were targeted as respondents. These senior people from the civil society group completed the survey themselves or referred the survey to other relevant people. If a respondent did not complete/return the survey (even after being reminded), another person in that group was asked to do so until the desired number of 10 respondents per group was met. In total, 15 people who were originally targeted did not fill out the survey, and because they represented each of the different civil society groups, no pattern was discernable. Thus, in total, 110 respondent surveys were collected and analyzed.

The surveys were conducted in both English and Bengali by the lead researcher over a 3-month period for 10 of the 11 groups. The environmental NGO group was added to the study more recently and was collected separately. The article survey was left with the recipient to complete, and was picked up at a later date. For some of the trade union respondents, the lead researcher verbally translated the survey questions. All other respondents were able to read the English survey.

As with any study, the research design has its limitations. This study is limited to the second largest industrial zone in Bangladesh—Chittagong—which is the main seaport. Its rivers are the main source of water for the six million people of Chittagong City and are used for the disposal of untreated effluents from industries (Chowdhury, Alam, & Hazari, 1999). Care must be taken in generalizing the city to the entire country, and this study’s findings to other developing countries. In addition, by only including the responses from 10 respondents from each group, some responses are more representative of the stakeholder grouping than are others. For example, artists or scientists are individual decision makers, while trade unions and professional associations are individuals representing their respective organizations. The collection of surveys from 10 different trade unions is more representative than the surveys from 10 different artists. This limitation is partially addressed through the study targeting the key players that were identified in secondary documents, such as newspapers, thus the respondents all represented individuals who were engaged in work-related pollution prevention. Biases related to self-reporting are likely, evidenced by the fact that every group rated itself higher than the other groups.

Results

An attempt has been made in this study, from analyzing the responses to the nine statements regarding environmental concerns, to understand the awareness and influence of the individual members from the different groups of civil society. The opinions of the members of civil society were surveyed using a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses to all questions ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). The first five questions asked about ecoproduct awareness (and behavior as a result of that awareness) and the next four asked about the individual’s influence on others. As shown in Table 2, there are five items in the construct for Awareness (Items 1-5, with Cronbach’s α as .76), and four items in the construct for Influence (Items 6-9, with Cronbach’s α as .69). These results were satisfactory and therefore enabled the researchers to proceed with the subsequent analyses.

Table 2.

The Reliability of Awareness and Influence Constructs.

Constructs	Items	Mean	SD	N	Cronbach’s α
Awareness	1. Ecofriendly	4.32	0.62	110	.763
	2. Ecohostile	3.54	0.80	110
	3. Ecolabel	3.83	0.86	110
	4. Ecopackage	3.97	0.85	110
	5. Ingredients of products	3.70	1.13	110
Influence	6. Create awareness among others	2.23	2.36	110	.693
	7. Motivation of friends	2.25	2.36	110
	8. Pro-environmentalist	2.16	2.22	110
	9. Participation in workshops, seminars	2.22	2.26	110

In addition to the first 9 questions, there were another 10 questions on the survey that asked the respondent to rate the awareness-raising role being played by each of the civil society groups, including themselves. The survey questions are provided in the appendix. The hypotheses being tested and the statistical analysis conducted for each of the sets of questions about awareness, influence, and role are detailed in the Results section.

Environmental Awareness and Influence of All Local Civil Society Groups Combined

Hypothesis 1a is supported. Local civil society groups have high (i.e., above the average score of 3 out of 5) awareness of environmental issues (mean = 3.87, t[109] = 14.91, p < .001).

Hypothesis 1b is not supported. Local civil society groups do not pursue influence strategies (i.e., are below the average score of 3 out of 5) to encourage pollution prevention (mean = 2.30, t[109] = −13.01, p < .001). See Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

The Means of the Awareness and Influence Constructs.

	N	Mean	SD	SEM
Awareness	110	3.87	0.61	0.05842
Influence	110	2.30	0.56	0.05365

Table 4.

One-Sample Test of Awareness and Influence.

	Test value = 3
					95% Confidence interval of the difference
	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference	Lower	Upper
Awareness	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference	14.91	109	0.000	0.87	0.76	0.99
Influence	−13.01	109	0.000	−0.70	−0.80	−0.59

Environmental Awareness of Each Civil Society Group

Hypothesis 2a is supported. As the inference statistics indicate in Table 5, the between-subject effects suggest that the 11 different local civil society groups have different awareness of the environmental issues (F[10, 99] = 46.98, p < .001; adjusted R² = .81). All the results are based on Type III sum of squares. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 6.

Table 5.

Inference Statistics of Awareness.

Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Corrected model	33.80^a	10	3.38	46.98	.000
Intercept	1648.23	1	1648.23	22904.98	.000
ID	33.80	10	3.38	46.98	.000
Error	7.12	99	0.07
Total	1689.16	110
Corrected total	40.93	109

R² = .83 (adjusted R² = .81).

Table 6.

Awareness for Each Group.

ID	Local civil society groups	Mean	SD	N
1	Scientists and researchers	4.52	0.30	10
2	Media and press	4.14	0.21	10
3	Artists and players	3.52	0.24	10
4	Political parties	3.56	0.23	10
5	Professionals	4.44	0.31	10
6	Literary and cultural organizations	3.82	0.20	10
7	Trade unions	2.50	0.37	10
8	Women and children organizations	3.90	0.32	10
9	Bureaucrats	4.36	0.21	10
10	Professional associations	4.24	0.25	10
11	Environmental nongovernmental organizations	3.58	0.27	10
Total		3.87	0.61	110

Specifically, results from the post hoc Tukey tests suggest that trade unions have the lowest score (mean = 2.50) regarding awareness compared with all the other civil society groups (p < .05). Scientists and researchers have the highest score (mean =4.52) regarding awareness compared with all the other civil society groups (p < .05). Media and press (mean = 4.14) and professional associations (mean = 4.24) have significantly higher awareness than artists and players (mean = 3.52, p < .05). Table 7 summarizes the post hoc results from the homogenous subsets.

Table 7.

Post Hoc Tests of Awareness (Tukey HSD^a,b).

ID	N	Subset
ID	N	2	3	4	5	1
7. Trade unions	10	2.50
3. Artists and players	10		3.52
4. Political parties	10		3.56
11. Environmental nongovernmental organizations	10		3.58
6. Literary and cultural organizations	10		3.82	3.82
8. Women and children organizations	10		3.90	3.90	3.90
2. Media and press	10			4.14	4.14	4.14
10. Professional associations	10				4.24	4.24
9. Bureaucrats	10					4.36
5. Professionals	10					4.44
1. Scientists and researchers	10					4.52
Sig.		1.00	.071	.230	.161	.071

Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on Type III sum of squares. The error term is mean square (error) = 0.07.

Uses harmonic mean sample size = 10.00. ^bα = .05.

Stakeholder Influence Strategies Used by Each Civil Society Group

Hypothesis 2b is supported. As the inference statistics indicate in Table 8, the between-subject effects suggest that the 11 different local civil society groups have different levels of pursuit in terms of their efforts to influence pollution prevention (F[10, 99] = 24.12, p < .001; adjusted R² = .68). All the results are based on Type III sum of squares. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 9.

Table 8.

Inference Statistics of Influence.

Source	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Corrected model	24.47^a	10	2.45	24.12	.000
Intercept	583.05	1	583.05	5747.06	.000
ID	24.47	10	2.45	24.12	.000
Error	10.04	99	0.10
Total	617.56	110
Corrected total	34.51	109

R² = .71 (adjusted R² = .68).

Table 9.

Influence for Each Group.

ID	Local civil society groups	Mean	SD	N
1	Scientists and researchers	2.60	0.24	10
2	Media and press	2.85	0.39	10
3	Artists and players	2.25	0.44	10
4	Political parties	2.40	0.39	10
5	Professionals	2.18	0.33	10
6	Literary and cultural organizations	2.30	0.370	10
7	Trade unions	1.48	0.14	10
8	Women and children organizations	1.85	0.27	10
9	Bureaucrats	1.75	0.29	10
10	Professional associations	2.48	0.32	10
11	Environmental nongovernmental organizations	3.20	0.20	10
Total		2.30	0.56	110

Specifically, results from the post hoc Tukey tests (Table 10) suggest that trade unions have the lowest score (mean = 1.48) on the influence construct compared with all the other civil society groups (p < .05). Environmental NGOs have the highest score (mean =3.20) compared with all the other groups (p < .05). Moreover, literary and cultural organizations (mean = 2.30) have significantly stronger usage of influence strategies than bureaucrats (mean = 1.75, p < .05). Media and press (mean = 2.85) have stronger usage of influence strategies than professionals (mean= 2.18, p < .05).

Table 10.

Post Hoc Test of Influence (Tukey HSD^a,b).

		Subset
ID	N	1	2	3	4	5
7. Trade unions	10	1.48
9. Bureaucrats	10	1.75	1.75
8. Women and children organizations	10	1.85	1.85	1.85
5. Professionals	10		2.18	2.18	2.18
3. Artists and players	10			2.25	2.25
6. Literary and cultural organizations	10			2.30	2.30
4. Political parties	10				2.40	2.40
10. Professional associations	10				2.48	2.48
1. Scientists and researchers	10				2.60	2.60
2. Media and press	10					2.85	2.85
11. Environmental nongovernmental organizations	10						3.20
Sig.		.247	.113	.072	.113	.072	.343

Note. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on Type III sum of squares. The error term is mean square (error) = 0.11.

Uses harmonic mean sample size = 10.00. ^bα = .05.

Role in Pollution Prevention of Each Civil Society Group

As shown in Tables 11 and 12, Hypothesis 3 is not supported. The role that local civil society groups play in influencing pollution prevention is relatively minor (i.e., 3 out of 5), with the exception of the media and press group.

Table 11.

Descriptive Statistics for Each Group Regarding Role Played in Pollution Prevention (As Perceived by Others).

	N	Mean	SD	SEM
1. Media and press	110	2.98	1.06	0.10
2. Trade unions	110	1.80	0.84	0.08
3. Scientists and researchers	110	2.79	1.05	0.10
4. Artists and players	110	2.22	0.89	0.09
5. Professional associations	110	2.16	1.00	0.10
6. Political parties	110	1.77	0.84	0.08
7. Bureaucrats	110	2.21	0.80	0.08
8. Literary and cultural organizations	110	2.22	0.68	0.07
9. Professionals	110	2.34	0.85	0.08
10. Women and children organizations	110	1.86	0.71	0.07

Note. Because the environmental nongovernmental organizations were surveyed after the other civil society groups, there were no questions in the survey about their role.

Table 12.

One-Sample Test of Roles.

	Test value = 3
	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference
1. Media and press	−0.18	109	.857	−0.02
2. Trade unions	−14.92	109	.000	−1.20
3. Scientists and researchers	−2.09	109	.039	−0.21
4. Artists and players	−9.19	109	.000	−0.78
5. Professional associations	−8.77	109	.000	−0.84
6. Political parties	−15.28	109	.000	−1.23
7. Bureaucrats	−10.34	109	.000	−0.79
8. Literary and cultural organizations	−12.02	109	.000	−0.78
9. Professionals	−8.20	109	.000	−0.66
10. Women and children organizations	−16.79	109	.000	−1.14

Note. Because the environmental nongovernmental organizations were surveyed after the other civil society groups, there were no questions in the survey about their role.

Discussion

It is the reality in Bangladesh that pollution is not being prevented (A. Hoque & Clarke, 2013; A. Hoque et al., 2014). While the rare individual company may be engaging stakeholders directly (Bata, 2011), most industrial units have no CSR or stakeholder engagement programs (A. Hoque et al., 2014). This study considers the movement and the roles of civil society groups in influencing pollution prevention from the perspective of the groups. In particular, the three empirical research questions in this study considered the extent to which members of local civil society groups perceived that they actually enacted pollution prevention awareness and influence in their behaviors. Ten of these groups were identified by Alam et al. (2002), while the 11th (environmental NGOs) was added to ensure that this highly relevant civil society group was also considered.

Awareness and Influence by Members of the 10 Civil Society Groups

The findings clearly indicate that most members from the civil society groups identified that they agree with statements about environmental products, thus showing their understanding (awareness) of these issues. Only the trade union respondents had a mean score under 3.0. The respondents were chosen because they (or their organization) were mentioned in the news or in other documents; therefore, it is not surprising that they perceive themselves as having strong environmental attitudes. Yet, when it came to influencing others, almost all groups disagreed with the statements in the survey. Only the environmental NGOs had a mean score over 3.0, and it was only 3.20, which is very close to neutral. From these findings, it can be argued that all the civil society groups need further capability and willingness if these groups are to be considered as an informal regulatory body for putting pressure on polluters, as is suggested by the World Bank (Wheeler, 1999; World Bank, 2000). As there is little enforcement of environmental regulation in Bangladesh, some authors look to CSR as the solution in preventing pollution. Environmental regulations in Bangladesh “are routinely flouted due to lack of enforcement by relevant agencies, which appear to be corrupt, weak, and ineffective” (Belal & Roberts, 2010, p. 313). Regarding CSR in Bangladesh, the level and extent of social and environmental disclosures are poor (Belal, 2001). Without actions to influence pollution prevention being undertaken by members of civil society groups, the incentive for firms to adopt pollution prevention in Bangladesh might be altogether lacking.

The relationship between civil society and companies has received increasing interest from both academic and practitioner communities (Kourula & Laasonen, 2010). In theory, the civil society sector is increasingly demanding a larger role in developing and implementing sustainability programs (Crespy & Miller, 2011). These organizations play a critical role in influencing pollution prevention, including awareness-raising, supporting best environmental practices, and discouraging unsustainable behavior (World Bank, 2000). According to the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP’s) millennium report on environment (UNEP, 2000), civil society organizations have been playing an important role in providing environmental education and awareness among the public. Moreover, civil society has been influential in shaping public perceptions regarding environmental problems, and are also part of a developing civil movement (Wong, 2010; Wong-Parodi, Ray, & Farrell, 2008). “Environmental NGOs, businesses, and government stakeholders are necessary participants in implementing governance approaches to sustainability and conservation efforts” (Heuer, 2011, p. 214). Yet, the findings of this study show the unwillingness by most civil society groups to partake in influence activities.

Understanding the reason behind this unwillingness or reluctance would require further research. This apparent unwillingness might exist because pollution prevention is not as high a priority for the citizens of Chittagong as other issues. Social topics such as safety are of higher priority; for example, civil society has a focus on building safety and corporate social performance in the garment industry in Bangladesh (M. A. Islam & Deegan, 2008).

International environmental organizations “can help lessen—to some extent—the environmental impacts of world economic inequities for less-developed countries” (Jorgenson, 2009, p. 149). There are nearly 10,000 NGOs working in different fields in Bangladesh. Among them, some NGOs are working on environmental issues as their main goal (Huq & Khan, 1994). Huq and Khan (1994) found that many NGOs work in different areas of environmental issues such as environmental education and awareness, training in environment-related issues, environment and disaster management, toxic waste disposal, social forestry, and the publication of state environmental reports. Furthermore, many international and national NGOs, namely, CARE, CARITAS, RARS, BRAC, PROSHIKA, FEJB, CAMPE, Bangladesh Unnayan Parished, Center for Sustainable Development, and Environment and Development Alliance, have been operating in the field of awareness and advocacy related to different environmental issues (M. Hoque, 1999). This study shows that while environmental NGOs in Chittagong did not have a higher environmental awareness than other civil society groups, they did show a higher willingness in the pursuit of influencing others.

Some local civil societies’ initiatives in pollution prevention have proven successful in several areas in Bangladesh. As examples, the joint press conference by environmental organizations in highlighting the damaging impact of lead pollution on children prompted the government to form a committee to look into the issue; Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association’s suit against FAP 20 was a success; the local people’s movement to save Bil Dakatia in Jessore achieved results; and the movement in Khulna against adverse environmental effects of shrimp cultivation also had some impact (N. Islam, 1999). What can be seen from the findings of this study is that local civil society groups in Chittagong have either not effectively embedded environmental awareness or advocacy into their programs, or that they have not successfully implemented their programs (or both), which shows that the claims of other authors about the role civil society is playing (UNEP, 2000; Wasik, 1996; Wheeler, 1999) are limited to a small number of national and international organizations and/or are not applicable in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Stakeholders’ Role in the Greening of Bangladeshi Industries

According to the literature reviewed, civil society works to safeguard community interests. From the secondary data and the work of Alam (2002), some positive examples were found; pro-environmental organizations, under the leadership of members of civil society, do work for the protection of the natural environment to maintain the quality of life of the people of Bangladesh. While Hypothesis 1b (stakeholder groups pursuing influence strategies) was not supported and Hypothesis 3 (stakeholder groups pursuing their role in pollution prevention) was also not supported, Hypothesis 2b (the differences between stakeholder groups with regard to influence strategies) was supported. Breaking that down further (based on the data from the surveys) to differences among stakeholder groups with regard to each influence strategy, the following table was created to summarize the results in relation to awareness-raising of individuals, influencing firms, and influencing the government (i.e., the framework adapted from Clarke & Dougherty, 2010; see Table 13).

Table 13.

Roles of Chittagong Civil Society Groups Based on a Continuum of Influence Strategies.

Stakeholder groups	Awareness raising	Influencing firms	Influencing government
Scientists and researchers	Neutral	Neutral	No
Media and press	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral
Artists and players	Neutral	No	Neutral
Political parties	No	No	Neutral
Professionals	No	No	No
Literacy and cultural organizations	No	No	No
Trade unions	No	No	No
Women and children organizations	No	No	No
Bureaucrats	No	No	No
Professional associations	No	Neutral	No
Environmental nongovernmental organizations	Yes	Neutral	Neutral

Note. Average score for question: 1.0 to 2.4 = No; 2.5 to 3.5 = Neutral; 3.6 to 5.0 = Yes.

Only environmental NGOs perceived that they played a role in awareness-raising, and no group of respondents indicated that they influenced either the government or firms (beyond their individual purchasing decisions). While the literature review shows that not all civil society groups are likely to use both awareness-raising and influence strategies, given this study’s focus on local civil society groups engaged in pollution prevention, all should have had awareness-raising, and some should have had influence strategies. If this study had not expanded current stakeholder influence theory to include awareness-raising as an influence strategy, no positive efforts would have been captured at all.

It is not possible to consider which of Frooman’s (2009) influence strategies are being implemented in Chittagong, Bangladesh, given that these stakeholder groups do not appear to be conducting withholding and usage influence strategies at all. Laplume et al. (2008) summarized that stakeholder groups will become influencers if they are aware, willing, and capable. This study shows that awareness is perceived to exist, although the same is not true for willingness and capability. Further research would be necessary to identify the barriers to adopting this strategy and what the potential drivers might be to overcoming these barriers.

Trade unions, perhaps, showed the most surprising (group) result. As the literature suggests, they could be using both awareness-raising and influence strategies; however, they generally scored the lowest across the nine survey questions (excluding the statement about rallies). A possible reason for this result is that the level of education of the members of trade unions in Bangladesh is low compared with other surveyed groups. They may not be aware (Laplume et al., 2008) of the harmful effects of pollutants. Perhaps, for the trade union members in Chittagong, Bangladesh, they are still trying to negotiate a living wage and safe working environments, so that addressing pollution-generating activities is not a priority. Long-term human health considerations may be considered secondary when short-term survival for their members is the priority.

From the literature review, it can be seen that civil society groups have the potential to play a very important role in the field of pollution prevention. This study emphasizes that stakeholder influence has not yet become mainstream in 10 of the local civil society groups in Chittagong, Bangladesh, that were included in this study, and that awareness-raising is being used only by environmental NGOs. More research is needed to determine if existing literature is deeply focused on developed countries, that this situation more accurately represents a developing country perspective, or whether civil society organizations tackling environmental issues are only located in developing country capitals rather than in large not-capital cities such as Chittagong. Industrial polluters are located in Chittagong; therefore, based on the theory, civil society groups should also be engaged. More research is needed to see whether a study, such as the current one in one city in Bangladesh, can be generalized further; however, this study does highlight the potential that a developing country perspective is not encompassed in existing theory but rather, as an area that is understudied.

While no study is defensibly generalizable beyond its boundaries, the current study is likely representative of other similar developing country situations. Chittagong is an industrial city with an active civil society. The findings, regarding the lack of stakeholder influence by civil society, are likely transferable to other industrial cities that are not only a nation’s capital but are located in countries with ongoing pollution problems and weakly enforced environmental regulations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings have implications for the drivers of CSR and stakeholder influence in the developing country of Bangladesh. A recent disaster in the Bangladeshi garment industry has highlighted the lack of safety concerns for employees, and as a result of attention on international companies, action has been taken (AFP, 2013). Yet, even while taking action on safety concerns, these same multinationals have not addressed environmental concerns. If regulation is not working (Belal & Roberts, 2010), and civil society is not actually engaged in influencing change on environmental issues, what will drive CSR and the greening of industry in a developing country? The current literature on CSR drivers assumes a pressure from civil society, yet this study essentially shows that such pressure is practically nonexistent in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Stakeholder engagement literature is generally firm-centric, considering how a company can and should engage stakeholders (Hasnas, 2013; Heuer, 2011; Waddock, 2011). This study uses the boundary of a local movement instead of an individual firm. It highlights that, to consider community-wide change, perhaps a community-level scale is needed.

The current study, through the adaptation of Clarke and Dougherty’s (2010) influence strategies, also offers a social movement perspective on stakeholder influence. In addition to influence strategies that directly target firms or government policy, the framework includes an awareness-raising strategy. Awareness-raising is the first step that is needed for change to occur; it generally precedes the other stakeholder influence strategies. From a theoretical perspective, adding awareness-raising to influence strategies enables a more inclusive perspective that encompasses the developing country context, and thus ensures stakeholder influence theory is generalizable worldwide.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Asadul Hoque is a research associate and formally a post-doctoral fellow at the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED) at the University of Waterloo (Canada). He holds a PhD in Sustainability in Business and obtains an MPhil in Green Marketing. His current research and interests include: greening of industries; pollution prevention; campus environmental management and environmental credit risk management in banks.

Amelia Clarke is an associate professor in the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development at the University of Waterloo (Canada) where she is also Director of the Master of Environment and Business program. She holds a PhD in Management (Strategy) from McGill University. Dr. Clarke’s current research and interests include: community sustainabilitystrategies; corporate social and environmental responsibility; youth-led social entrepreneurship and campus environmental management.

Lei Huang is assistant professor of Marketing at the School of Business, SUNY Fredonia. His research and publications focus on consumer behavior, social media marketing, corporate social responsibility, social marketing, and research methodology. Before joining academia, Dr. Huang had worked in the private sectors for 10 years on the creative side of marketing communications strategies in Canada, Germany, USA, and China.

References

AFP. (2013, May 15). Bangladesh garment makers hail retailers’ safety pledge. Yahoo News. Retrieved from https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bangladesh-garment-makers-hail-retailers-064520044.html#Z2UmQ9b

Alam

(2002). The role of civil society to control the environmental degradation of Bangladesh. In Bangladesh Environment—2002. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Paribash Andolon.

Alam

M. A.

Karim

K. M. R.

Chowdhury

P. S.

(2002). The role of civil society to control the environmental degradation of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the Bangladesh Environment 2002, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Altman

(1999). Transformed corporate community relations: A management tool for achieving corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 102(1), 43-51.

Angelidis

Ibrahim

(2004). An exploratory study of the impact of degree of religiousness upon an individual’s corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 119-128.

Bata. (2011). Bata Shoe Company (Bangladesh) Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.batabd.com/about-us.html

Baur

Schmitz

H. P.

(2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 9-21. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1057-9

Belal

A. R.

(2001). A study of corporate social disclosures in Bangladesh. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16, 224-289.

Belal

A. R.

Owen

(2007). The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: An engagement based study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 20, 472-494.

10.

Belal

A. R.

Roberts

R. W.

(2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 311-324. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0511-4

11.

Butterfield

Reed

Lemak

(2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business & Society, 43, 162-195. doi:10.1177/0007650304265956

12.

Cespedes-Lorentea

Burgos-Jimeneza

Alvarez-Gilb

M. J.

(2003). Stakeholders’ environmental influence. An empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19, 333-358.

13.

Chowdhury

Alam

Hazari

(1999). Distribution of radionuclides in the river sediments and coastal soils of Chittagong, Bangladesh and evaluation of the radiation hazard. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 51, 747-755. doi:10.1016/S0969-8043(99)00098-6

14.

Clarke

Dougherty

(2010). Youth-led social entrepreneurship: Enabling social change. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 1-33.

15.

Clarke

Fuller

(2010). Collaborative strategic management: strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 85-101. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0781-5

16.

Cordano

Frieze

I. H.

Ellis

K. M.

(2004). Entangled affiliations and attitudes: An analysis of the influences on environmental policy stakeholders’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 27-40.

17.

Crespy

C. T.

Miller

V. V.

(2011). Sustainability reporting: A comparative study of NGOs and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18. doi:10.1002/csr.248

18.

Davis

P. R.

McGregor

J. A.

(2000). Civil society, international donors and poverty in Bangladesh. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 38(1), 47-64.

19.

Delmas

Toffel

M. W.

(2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209-222. doi:10.1002/bse.409

20.

Driscoll

Starik

(2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55-73.

21.

Edwards

(2005). The sustainability revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.

22.

Eesley

Lenox

(2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781. doi:10.1002/smj.536

23.

Frooman

(1999). Stakeholder influences strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191-205.

24.

Friedman

A. L.

Miles

(2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1-21. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00280

25.

Frooman

(2009). Stakeholder influence strategies (Vol. 3, pp. 164-183). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

26.

González-Benito

(2010). A study of determinant factors of stakeholder environmental pressure perceived by industrial companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 164-181. doi:10.1002/bse.631

27.

Guoyou

Saixing

Chiming

Haitao

Hailiang

(2013). Stakeholders’ influences on corporate green innovation strategy: A case study of manufacturing firms in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 1-14. doi:10.1002/csr.283

28.

Hasnas

(2013). Whither stakeholder theory? A guide for the perplexed revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 47-57. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1231-8

29.

Heuer

(2011). Ecosystem cross-sector collaboration: Conceptualizing an adaptive approach to sustainability governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 211-221. doi:10.1002/bse.673

30.

Hoque

Clarke

(2013). Greening of industries in Bangladesh: Pollution prevention practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 47-56. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.008

31.

Hoque

Clarke

MacDonald

(2014). Implementing a developing country’s global environmental commitments: Industry perspectives on potential pollution prevention programs in Bangladesh. In Vazquez

D. A.

Sarkis

Cordeiro

(Eds.), Collaboration for sustainability and innovation in the Global South: A role for south driven sustainability? (pp. 149-175). New York, NY: Springer.

32.

Hoque

(1999). Sustainable management of environment. In Chowdhury

Q. I.

(Ed.), Bangladesh state environment report—1999. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Forum of Environmental Journalists of Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://www.saf-7.org/saf/safdic/bookdetail.asp?bid=7369&ac=7688

33.

Huijstee

M. V.

Glasbergen

(2010). NGOs moving business: An analysis of contrasting strategies. Business & Society, 49, 591-618. doi:10.1177/0007650310365516

34.

Huq

Khan

(1994). Environmental activities in Bangladesh, environment and development (Vol. 1). Dhaka, Bangladesh: University Press Limited.

35.

Islam

M. A.

Deegan

(2008). Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information evidence from Bangladesh. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 850-874. doi:10.1108/09513570810893272

36.

Islam

(1999). Protecting Bangladesh’s environment: The role of the civil society. Retrieved from http://www.eng-consult.com/BEN/papers/Paper-NIslam.PDF

37.

Islam

(2000). West minimization practices (National report). Dhaka, Bangladesh: Asian Productivity Organization.

38.

Jamali

Mirshak

(2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSREP): Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 243-262.

39.

Jensen

J. C.

Berg

(2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 299-316.

40.

Jorgenson

A. K.

(2009). Foreign direct investment and the environment, the mitigating influence of institutional and civil society factors, and relationships between industrial pollution and human health: A panel study of less-developed countries. Organization & Environment, 22, 135-157. doi:10.1177/1086026609338163

41.

Kassinis

Vafeas

(2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 145-159.

42.

Khan

M. R.

(2000). The green-agenda in Bangladesh: A policy-management framework Bangladesh: State of Environment Report—2000. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Forum of Environmental Journalists of Bangladesh.

43.

Kobeissi

Damanpour

(2009). Corporate responsiveness to community stakeholders: Effects of contextual and organizational characteristics. Business & Society, 48, 326-359. doi:10.1177/0007650307305369

44.

Kock

Santaló

Diestre

(2012). Corporate governance and the environment: What type of governance creates greener companies? Journal of Management Studies, 49, 492-514. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00993.x

45.

Kourula

(2010). Corporate engagement with non-governmental organizations in different institutional contexts: A case study of a forest products company. Journal of World Business, 45, 395-404. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.010

46.

Kourula

Laasonen

(2010). Nongovernmental organizations in business and society, management and international business research. Business & Society, 49, 35-67. doi:10.1177/0007650309345282

47.

Laplume

A. O.

Sonpar

Litz

R. A.

(2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152-1189. doi:10.1177/0149206308324322

48.

Lee

S. Y.

Rhee

S. Y.

(2006). The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Management Decision, 45, 196-216.

49.

Leonard

Pelling

(2010). Civil society response to industrial contamination of groundwater in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 22, 579-595.

50.

Lewis

(2004). On the difficulty of studying “civil society”: Reflections on NGOs, state and democracy in Bangladesh. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 38, 299-322. doi:10.1177/006996670403800301

51.

Neville

B. A.

Menguc

(2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377-391. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-0015-4

52.

O’Connell

Stephens

Betz

Shepard

Hendry

(2005). An organizational field approach to corporate rationality: The role of stakeholder activism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 93-111.

53.

G. Y.

Zeng

S. X.

Tam

C. M.

Yin

H. T.

J. F.

Dai

Z. H.

(2011). Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in China: Rethinking on stakeholders’ roles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 1250-1256. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.006

54.

Reed

(2002). Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries: A critical theory perspective. Business & Society, 41, 166-207.

55.

Rowley

Berman

(2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 397-418.

56.

Rowley

Moldoveanu

(2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204-219.

57.

Schwartz

Carroll

(2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society, 47, 148-186. doi:10.1177/0007650306297942

58.

Sharma

Henriques

(2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 159-180. doi:10.1002/smj.439

59.

Sobhani

F. A.

Amran

Zainuddin

(2009). Revisiting the practices of corporate social and environmental disclosure in Bangladesh. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 167-183.

60.

Starik

(1994). The Toronto Conference: Reflection of stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 33, 82-131.

61.

Starik

(1995). Should trees have managerial toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207-217.

62.

Starik

Rands

(1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908-935.

63.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2000). Global environment out-look. Nairobi, Kenya: Author.

64.

Waddock

(2011). We are all stakeholders of Gaia: A normative perspective on stakeholder thinking. Organization & Environment, 24, 192-212. doi:10.1177/1086026611413933

65.

Wasik

J. F.

(1996). Green marketing and management: A global perspective. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

66.

Wheeler

(1999). Greening industry: New roles for communities, markets, and governments. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

67.

Wong

(2010). Environmental awareness, governance and public participation: Public perception perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 67, 169-181. doi:10.1080/00207231003683424

68.

Wong-Parodi

Ray

Farrell

A. E.

(2008). Environmental non-government organizations’ perceptions of geologic sequestration. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 1-8. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024007

69.

World Bank. (2000). World development report 2000: Entering the 21st century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

70.

Zafarullah

Rahman

M. H.

(2002). Human rights, civil society and nongovernmental organizations: The nexus in Bangladesh. Human Rights Quarterly, 24, 1011-1034. doi:10.1353/hrq.2002.0055